Posts Tagged ‘Media’

So this morning I’m looking through the crappy bird-cage-liner that passes itself off as the newspaper of record on the West Coast, just as I’ve been looking through the same bird-cage-liner every day since Trump announced his candidacy, let alone since he was elected. And it’s just rabidly unhinged bias day after day after day.

Meanwhile, the same Democrat establishment and the same voters who literally swarmed Obama with fanatic worship when he was elected – who hysterically told anyone who didn’t take the Mark of the Obama that you were a racist, a hater, a traitor, fill in your own blank – rose up in a spirit of rabid, violent hatred against the President of the United States even before he took office.

Does democracy require journalists and educators to strive for political balance? I’m hardly alone in thinking the answer is “yes.” But it also requires them to present the facts as they understand them — and when it is not possible to be factual and balanced at the same time, democratic institutions risk collapse.

Consider the problem abstractly. Democracy X is dominated by two parties, Y and Z. Party Y is committed to the truth of propositions A, B and C, while Party Z is committed to the falsity of A, B and C. Slowly the evidence mounts: A, B and C look very likely to be false. Observers in the media and experts in the education system begin to see this, but the evidence isn’t quite plain enough for non-experts, especially if those non-experts are aligned with Party Y and already committed to A, B and C.

Both psychological research and commonsense observation of the recent political situation (I think you’ll agree with this, whatever side you’re on) demonstrate the great human capacity to rationalize and justify what you want to believe. The evidence against A can be very substantial — compelling, even, from a neutral point of view — without convincing people who are emotionally invested in the truth of A.

The journalists and educators who live in X now face a dilemma. They can present both sides in a balanced way, or they can call the facts as they see them. Either choice threatens the basic institutions of democracy.

If they present balanced cases for and against A, B and C, they give equal time to the false and the true. They create the misleading impression that the matter is still in doubt, that opinion is divided, that it’s equally reasonable to believe either side. They thereby undermine and discredit their own assessment that A, B and C are very likely to be false. This is dangerous, since democracy depends on a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts.

In the long term, journalists and educators will likely turn against balance, because they care intensely about the facts in question and don’t wish to pretend that the evidence is unclear. They understand that they cannot routinely promote false equivalencies while retaining their integrity.

Schwittzoebel blathers on a little longer and then finally concludes,

This is all general and oversimplified. But it’s clear in the abstract and in the real world that knowledgeable people can be forced by the evidence to disproportionately favor one political party over another, creating a vicious cycle of bias and partisan alignment.

We might be entering this cycle in the United States. To fight against it, we must allow journalists, educators and researchers to speak freely. Political leaders and their supporters must not rush to the conclusion that experts who disagree with them — even systematically — are their enemies.

The first thing you need to understand is that, in the “abstract” presentation that he provides, he this “academic” firmly sides with the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is “abstractly” Party Y – you know, the one that has every single one of its facts wrong because it’s dominated by stupid, ignorant, emotional people – whereas his Party Z is the Enlightened Party that knows all and is struggling to accommodate all of these stupid, vacuous, ignorant, clueless unwashed masses.

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

What about the academics? Yeah, he fails to mention the same rabid bias in that group, also.

Almost 100 percent of the 2016 presidential political donations made by top liberal arts professors went to Democratic candidates, with only one professor giving to a Republican candidate.

Forty-seven professors at the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, have given to presidential campaigns, according to donations recorded in the third quarter by the Federal Election Commission and aggregated by Campus Reform, a conservative watchdog of higher education.

Of those 47 professors, Hamilton College History Professor Robert Paquette was the only one to give to a Republican — donating $150 to Carly Fiorina’s campaign.

The 46 other professors gave $20,875 to Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and $8,417 to Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, the report said.

“I do believe these numbers give an accurate representation of the political leanings of faculty on most college campuses, especially allegedly elite liberal arts colleges like Hamilton College,” Mr. Paquette told Campus Reform. Mr. Paquette told the organization he was the “only out-of-closet conservative in a faculty of 200.”

The truly frightening thing about Schwitzgebel’s “analysis” is that, for Schwitzgebel, this rabidly lopsided bias probably isn’t even a problem. After all, he is telling us that journalists and academics HAVE to ultimately choose sides and “present facts as they understand them.” They have to be able “to speak freely.”

And so they have a RIGHT and even a DUTY to be in Nazi goose-stepping fascist synchronized march toward one political ideology.

And if you are NOT in these elite classes of the Übermensch, you have the right to shut up and mindlessly follow. Because, that is all they believe you are capable of doing.

In order for Schwitzgebel to have his utopian “democracy” where we have “a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts,” we have only tow alternatives: the first is to put everyone who supports Party Y in a reeducation camp until they understand that the only acceptable reality is to accept the one presented by the journalists and the academics; and the second is to surgically “correct” the members of Party Y with a full frontal lobotomy and fit them with a drool-collecting prosthetic so that they can be led to the way, the truth and the life according to “the facts” as journalists and academics understand them.

two things make a philosopher great: quality of argument and creative vigor

I mean, gee whiz, Eric, “quality of argument”? HOW ABOUT ANY DAMN ARGUMENT AT ALL??? “Creative vigor”? I mean, what the hell, when nearly one-hundred percent of your ilk are all marching in lock-step for one side. I mean, oh yeah, there’s just ALL KINDS of “creativity” going on in your ivy tower and your faculty lounge, isn’t there???

Eric, you are true to your liberal-progressive kind: you are a devout, abject moral hypocrite of the very lowest order.

Allow me to post every single page of the Los Angles Times main section to prove a point:

There they are: a photograph of every single page of the main section of the Los Angles times for Monday, January 30, 2017

Let me go through every single headline and subtitle of each article in the main page section of the newspaper of record for the West Coast:

How Trump created chaos at the airports: Not only was his order on refugees unfair and inhumane, but they way it was carried out was a disaster.

Leader of the free world [on Angela Merkel, celebrating her leftist immigration policies in contrast to Trump’s]

A cruel, illegal executive order

It’s been this way ever since EVER, for the record.

There is not ONE example of objective, impartial journalism in the entire newspaper. Rather, it is blatantly obvious that the policy of the Los Angeles Times is of echoing and amplifying ALL the criticisms from the unhinged left, while steadfastly refusing to so much as allow for mention ANYTHING that Trump may have done that could even conceivably be good.

Every single article is negative and unrelentingly critical. For example, the “Police wary of new duty article” subtitled, “Trump’s order to use local units to enforce immigration laws elicits resistance by some L.A. officers” and then titled as it continues “New duties would ‘create a wedge'”: how likely is it that there are not “some L.A. officers” who are FOR this executive order and welcome it as good policy??? But the “some officers” who take the leftist side are the ONLY ones who get to count. And to the extent that there is any nuance in the article itself, you don’t see anything but unrelenting anger and criticism in the headlines and subtitles that are what most people glance at as they pick up this biased piece of leftist propaganda.

And again, in the “BONDS MADE CLOSER” story: do you think it’s possible that someone with bad intentions might have been blocked? But no, it’s going to be framed as sobbing mothers and hysterical children. And that’s all that matters. Which amounts to an entirely emotionalism-laded framing of this policy from a biased, slanted perspective while our philosophy professor Eric Schwitzgebe lambasts US as the “emotional” ones.

The media and academia pull this tactic all the damn time: let’s search and search and search until we can find some sympathetic victim that suits our narrative, and then follow the Saul Alinsky strategy: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” And it is ALWAYS emotional and it is ALWAYS leftist. But it’s marvelous when they do what they demonize us for doing. Because to be a liberal progressive is to be an abject moral hypocrite incapable of shame or virtue or integrity or decency or honesty.

The “Trump’s powerful political duo” article where Trump advisors want to “reshape the country” forces me to remember when Obama said he was only days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” But THAT was wonderful and greeted with cheers and adoration whereas what Trump is doing is utterly evil because somebody who isn’t a beloved liberal ideologue now wants to “reshape the country.”

No, or to put it more accurately, HELL no: rather, to put it in Eric’s language, “they present the facts as they understand them.” Or at least “the facts” that they CHOOSE in their BIAS to present.

“Thousands of protesters” are framed as HEROES. Remember when the Tea Party was demonstrating? Not ONE SINGLE arrest was EVER made of a tea party supporter – and in fact the ONLY arrests were of unhinged liberal progressives whose fascist souls were filled with hate and rage at the thought that free people had the freedom to demonstrate. But the mainstream media demonized us like we were burning and looting and raping and rioting. But then we had first the vile protests of the Occupy Movement where we had acts of terrorism, acts of rape, acts of mass vandalism; then we had Black Lives Matter chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” and “What do we want?” Dead cops!” When do we want it?” “NOW!” which corresponded to an orgy of execution-style slayings of police officers. And now we’ve got Democrats charged with RIOTING the day Donald Trump was inaugurated. And the way the mainstream media depicts it it’s all so, so wonderful.

Such as when Democrats were using Nazi-style Brownshirt tactics to physically beat and terrorize Donald Trump supporters for the crime of participating in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution (see my articles documenting this here and here and here).

And you’re actually worried that the mainstream media that ignored the rise of the Nazi Party from within the Democrat Party isn’t being given enough respect, Eric???

Damn near very single story the mainstream media does emerges from the Saul Alinsky tactic: Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. DAMN NEAR EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Of course, you have to realize that at NO TIME EVER in the last eight years did ANY Secret Service agent EVER ONCE obstruct ANY reporter’s view of the MLK bust: or else we can safely assume that these unbiased purveyors of fact and truth would have immediately reported that Barack Obama had ordered the MLK bust removed.

Amazingly, Zeke Miller STILL has a job in spite of the fact that he just proved that Time Magazine is a nest of poisonous, fanged, venomous vipers who are NOTHING but biased propagandists trying to slander and pervert the truth to suit their ideology and political narrative to harm and undermine Donald Trump and every single voter who elected him president.

You go back and look over the disgrace that journalists made of themselves as Donald Trump kept proving that all the crap they were “reporting” was “FAKE NEWS” from a biased perspective: Donald Trump couldn’t win the primary because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump could never defeat Hillary Clinton because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump was out of contention in all the swing states because he was too polarizing and too divisive. And all our biased polls prove our foreordained biased conclusion justifying our biased narrative.

THIS is what it means to be a “journalist” today. THIS is what it means to be an “academic” today. And if you’re not one of these propagandists, good luck in finding a damn job with them or keeping a job if you already managed to sneak in.

If you are a “journalist” or an “academic” today, YOU ARE THE LIVING EMBODIMENT OF DISHONESTY AND DISGRACE.

On the academic side, what we see is outright psycho-terror for professors whose expertise and scientific analysis tell them that evolution as a “fact” is a load of crap; we see an avalanche in academia of intolerable denials of tenure, denials of promotion, denials of contract renewals, denials of earned degrees, denials of admission into graduate programs”, and other rabid discrimination against a substantial minority of credentialed scientists that disagrees with the prevailing dogmatism of the myth of evolution.

This is “science” to an evolutionist. Consider the words from Nobel Laureate Dr. George Wald who concedes a great deal in this quote: “One only has to concede the magnitude of the task to concede the possibility of the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Wald talks about billions of years and then concludes, “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain.”

You have discredited yourselves. Nobody ought to listen to you who wants the truth or even anything vaguely resembling the truth. Your “facts” “as you understand them” are carefully selected lies that pimp a false narrative. You’ve done it over and over and over again.

WHERE was your outrage, Mr. Schwittzoebel, when Obama was imposing every manner of outrageous, polarizing executive orders and policies and spitting in the eyes of increasingly outraged and alienated Americans???

I wrote this prediction back in 2012:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit. Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States. And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions. You mark my words. Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification??? Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage. You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching. And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame. — My words on June 18, 2012

If you want to get even with the people most responsible for the rise of Donald Trump, then hunt every Democrat who voted for Barack Obama down with dogs and burn them alive. Because Donald Trump was the result of eight years of FASCISM.

So we get to Trump’s entirely LAWFUL order to limit immigrants and refugees from seven countries that were actually even on Obama’s list as dangerous sponsors of terrorism. For eight years, Obama gave us lawless executive orders that he himself had previously labeled as the acts of a king, an emperor, arguing that they were unconstitutional and anti-democratic before then issuing them anyway. And Democrats smiled and laughed at the abandonment of our Constitution and the tossing out of our laws.

DON’T complain, Democrat: YOU INVITED THIS. YOU DEMANDED THIS. YOU GOT WHAT YOU GAVE US.

Further, these seven countries are notorious abusers of human rights against Christian minorities, against women, against homosexuals. But that’s perfectly okay, isn’t it???

Obama has been nothing short of a total disaster for the Democratic Party. He lost the White House. He lost the House. He lost the Senate. He lost a giant number of governorships. He lost a giant number of state houses. He’s a disgrace. And yet he is the liberal progressives’ god and the only god with whom they will have to do.

If Democrats had ANY virtue or integrity whatsoever, they would say, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, Trump won.” They would say, “We Democrats can go for a ride with Donald Trump, but we gotta sit in back.”

The fact that you won’t abide by the rules of your own game that you created is the biggest crisis facing America today.

But let’s call her by a different and more fitting name: ILLary. Because she is a sick, sick puppy in more ways than one.

It’s truly amazing. Hillary Clinton goes from having more proof than ever that yes she SHOULD have been criminally charged over her national security violations with her secret private server designed to bypass transparency and accountability laws, to proof that she was using her Clinton Foundation as a quid-pro-quo pay-to-play machine, to her vile remarks demonizing Trump supporters as racist and every other hateful thing, to this.

We now know that the Obama FBI never even CONSIDERED destruction of evidence (destroying 33,000 emails and 13 smart phones and five iPads); obstruction of justice (destroying aforementioned emails and devices AFTER learning that they were under active congressional subpoena); or lying to Congress – all federal crimes. This “investigation” was a whitewash from long before Attorney General Lynch illegally secretly met with Bill Clinton (ostensibly to discuss one another’s children?!?!?). Nor did the FBI ever consider the numerous crimes committed through and via the Clinton Foundation that was so comingled with the State Department under Hillary Clinton that the two organizations became ONE. Nor did the FBI ever bother to question how it was that a private contractor with zero security clearance was allowed to wipe and bleach a server loaded with above top secret national security information without ANY security clearance AT ALL???

Nothing to see here, folks. We’ve got nothing to hide! NOTHING!!! Well, except for that giant pile of stuff we had to hide that we destroyed, but now that it’s all gone, nothing to hide!!!

The Obama FBI asked, “How can we help you obstruct justice?” And Hillary said, “Oh, well, I’m glad that you asked!”

So let’s go from the FBI freak show to the media freak show and ask whose campaign is constantly depicted as being in meltdown? Who is constantly framed as being unfit for the office of president? Donald Trump. It’s amazing.

So in this latest installment of God proving that Hillary shouldn’t be anywhere CLOSE to the White House, let alone in the Oval Office, Hillary Clinton has not one but two savage coughing spasms last week. Everyone was talking about it – you know, everyone but the mainstream media that in typical Stalinistic fashion refused to cover it. If they did bother to talk about it, they cited the Clinton campaign line: coughing is no big deal, everybody coughs. And it’s not like her cough means she has anything bad.

Okay. So what happens next I paraphrase these guys in describing:

So Hillary Clinton – on 9/11, the anniversary of the day when you’re supposed to show STRENGTH – actually FAINTED and COLLAPSED, was grabbed by her Secret Service people, and as she’s falling down trips over her shoe and her shoe falls off. So there’s this pathetic picture now of Hillary Clinton’s lone shoe just over by the curb. Again, you couldn’t script it better than this.

Remember George W. Bush’s bullhorn speech moment? Do you remember the crowd of first responders taking courage from their commander in chief and cheering him as he delivered the greatest speech of his presidency? That was his 9/11 moment. And he passed.

Hillary Clinton had her 9/11 moment. And she fainted and collapsed and her shoe fell off and she was grabbed and hauled away and her team lied and then lied again and then lied some more and are probably still lying about what the hell she has. And she failed.

It’s like that 3AM moment she ran in her ad against Obama, and then Benghazi came and her phone rang and rang and rang until she unplugged the damn noisy thing and not one damn thing was done to stop four Americans from perishing while defending American soil on her watch.

Then the Clinton capacity for being the worst liar who ever lived started. Except for the media, where it had ALREADY started when they were confined and forced to stay in their little sheep pen for and hour and a half. We’ll talk about that in a minute.

The story was first spun by the Clintonian campaign spinners that she just left because of whatever-the-hell miscellaneous reasons. She had another event to attend, some dry cleaning to pick up, whatever. Anything but that she was starting to have a major health crisis and absolutely could not remain at the ceremony. And that was the official Stalinist position from the campaign: until it was FINALLY admitted by her dishonest and fascistically secretive staff that there might be a teensy, weensy little health issue. But even then they didn’t tell the actual truth. That cannot happen when you work for a Clinton. So the first issue they offered was that she was “overheated.” The week before New York had been warm, so why not float the global warming claim? But heck, it was 80 degrees that 9/11 anniversary day, with perfect humidity. And the fact that she was overheated was like the drug-addict starlets who are “exhausted” and so go to a rehab center, right? So that was unbelievable. So next they said she was “dehydrated.” No. Just no. Well, okay how about this one: it was allergies. Which is like the one where she had pollen-induced coughing spasms indoors with all the AC and the filters running. So she’s no longer overheated, or dehydrated, or allergic, or whatever the hell; nope, now its something else. What? Well, she had pneumonia, which we’re finally told she’d had for days without anyone bothering to notify the media that they’d kept behind a line for 90 minutes at the scene of the collapse.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign left reporters in the dark for a full 90 minutes about her health and whereabouts on Sunday after she unexpectedly left a 9/11 memorial event in New York. It took most of the day to disclose that Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia nearly three days earlier and wasn’t simply “overheated,” as the campaign’s initial statement on Sunday said.

The campaign’s limited and confusing disclosures frustrated reporters who cover Clinton and seemed to play into health rumors that have been promoted by her Republican opponent, Donald Trump, and his surrogates and touted in conservative media outlets.

Pool reporters — those who follow the Democratic nominee into restricted spaces and provide reports to other reporters — never saw her leave the commemorative event at the World Trade Center complex in Lower Manhattan and then apparently collapse into a van. The pool was confined to a media pen out of sight of Clinton’s location. Footage of her halting departure was captured by a bystander, Zdenek Gazda, who noticed her being helped to the vehicle.

The news appears to have been broken Sunday morning on Twitter by Fox News reporter Rick Leventhal. Citing an unnamed source, Leventhal tweeted at 9:42 a.m. “Hillary Clinton ‘clearly having some medical episode’ & had to be helped into van by her protective detail at WTC.”

You know, just like the gullible little sheep they are whenever the candidate they are covering is a fellow liberal.

Did you get that? The Hillary Campaign tried to prevent the media from learning the truth as they lied and lied some more, but a bystander with a phone allowed us to know what no journalist could or would report. The press was literally CONFINED to the pen and NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE.

And yeah, it finally took the hated Fox News to break the damn story. And every Democrat hates Fox News because every Democrat has a pathological hatred of and contempt for the TRUTH.

So what does Hillary’s staff do? She is grabbed and pushed into the van after collapsing and they take her where? The hospital? No. They take her to her daughter’s place. Maybe because there is a full-fledged medical facility there? They would have needed an X-Ray to definitively diagnose her pneumonia they now say she has. And they pump her full of whatever and she’s out hugging children with pneumonia.

I mean, I remember that’s pretty much what I did when I had pneumonia: try to pass it on to a child. Stupid snot-nosed punk kid had it coming.

You cannot accurately diagnose pneumonia – let alone what type of pneumonia somebody has – at your daughter’s apartment. If Chelsea Clinton’s apartment has a full barrage of medical equipment, that means that every single Clinton campaign member including her personal physician are intentionally trying to perpetuate a gargantuan lie about the appalling lack of fitness to be the commander in chief.

Now there’s one theory that doctor’s have offered: about a month back, a doctor offered Parkinson’s. And offered the explanation in a tightly, cogent reasoned medical case. And one of the leading causes of death from Parkinson’s is complications from pneumonia. And now more proof than ever: Hillary was wearing those anti-seizure glasses, she’s been having coughing fits, her throat is messed up, she’s having trouble swallowing. ALL critical symptoms of Parkinson’s.

This woman is having seizures, something that apparently happens fully half the time somebody does what Hillary Clinton admittedly did by passing out, hitting her head, and suffering a serious concussion:

You want to tell me I’m believing “conspiracy stories.” Well, I’ll tell you WHAT: when you destroy 33,000 emails and you physically destroy 13 phones along with other devises, my conspiracy theory is the TRUTH unless and until you produce the evidence you destroyed to prove otherwise. Especially when that stuff was under direct subpoena when you destroyed it.

Monday on NPR’s “Morning Edition,” ABC political commentator Cokie Roberts offered her thoughts on the apparent health issues regarding Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the how the party could be looking to handle things if a replacement is needed for Clinton.

According to Roberts, there was already conversation within the party about such a possibility.

“The fact that it comes now when the polls are tightening and Democrats are already saying that Hillary was the only candidate who could not beat Trump and it is taking her off of the campaign trail, canceling her trip to California – it has them very nervously beginning to whisper about having her step aside and finding another candidate.”

Hillary Clinton has no business whatsoever being president. It was obvious like FOREVER ago. And it’s just kept getting more and more and more obvious.

And you were wicked fools for making her your candidate. And that’s why you DESERVE Donald Trump.

As poor as Hillary’s health obviously is – and it is obvious that it is terrifyingly BAD and she has surrounded herself with sycophants to shield her from people knowing the damn TRUTH including with one of her sycophants masquerading as her personal physician – that is not her primary disqualification.

It is not her sick health, it is her sick character, and yes, in this health crisis, it just got revealed AGAIN: her campaign trotted out four not just lie but damn-lie stories about her health crisis and that is why we have absolutely ZERO reason to believe the last iteration they offered. It’s her pathologically dishonest character; her deceitfulness, her deceptiveness, her truthlessness. She has simply over and over again in large ways and small ways proven that she cannot be trusted because she is literally incapable of telling the truth about ANYTHING.

Hillary Clinton is unfit for the presidency by any standard under the sun.

You know, I can’t help but remember the REAL day of 9/11, when Muslims – yes, fool, MUSLIMS in the name of ISLAM – attacked America. And I remember hundreds of people throwing themselves out of the burning World Trade Center towers to their deaths, with the choice of either being burned alive as Obama’s Islamic State does to victims or being pulverized by the impact onto concrete from a thousand foot fall. And I realize that if that attack were to happen again, Hillary Clinton, just like Barack Obama before her, would do NOTHING. There would BE no “war on terror.” Instead, Hillary Clinton would demand that millions of more Muslims be brought into America.

I think of another 9/11, and our president can’t even walk without falling or feinting, let alone LEAD.

The Chinese came up with a curse: “May you live in interesting times.” The subtle idea was, if things were going well, if there was peace, times would be nice and boring. The worse things got, however, the more “interesting” they would be.

Which is why things are so damn interesting in our country and in our world now, thanks to the worst president in American history.

[M]edia bias seems an obvious and inevitable phenomenon; serious analyses of media bias date back as far as the Lincoln-Douglas days over 150 years ago. But honest and objective analyses clearly indicate that such bias has only worsened.

During President Obama’s 2008 campaign, the overwhelming majority of news media was clearly and unabashedly behind the campaign of hope and change. Time‘s Mark Halperin called it “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq War. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.” Los Angeles Times writer Mark Barabak expressed similar sentiments: “I think it’s incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we’re being fair. The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I’ve ever covered, by far.”

Their statements were not only backed by traditional analyses of media coverage, but also by a more revealing statistic: the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816 from 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks in 2008, while the Republican Party received only $142,863 from 193 donors.

After such blatant and self-admitted media bias in 2008, we might have expected this year’s election coverage to become far more balanced. Instead, news organizations remained blatantly in the bag for the president and his Democratic allies.

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism recently released its report on the 2012 election, and the numbers are clearer than ever. While Governor Romney and President Obama received approximately the same amount of coverage, the type and character of coverage provided were much different. In eveningnetwork news, for example, narratives of President Obama remained approximately balanced, while the negative exceeded the positive by 17 percentage points for Governor Romney. Coverage of Romney was also twice as negative as that of President Obama (23 percent versus 11 percent).

Of course, the go-to scapegoat for liberal critics will be the conservative-leaning Fox News Channel. There is no question that Fox News exhibited a right-leaning bias in its coverage: fully 46 percent of news coverage for the president was negative. However, not only was Fox News essentially the only media organization to not have a leftward skew, the bias in its coverage also paled in comparison to that of MSNBC, where coverage of Romney was 71 percent negative (over one and half times more negative than Fox coverage of President Obama). And perhaps the most telling statistic is from the final week, when MSNBC ran no negative coverage of President Obama and no positive coverage of Governor Romney, the most absolute bias of any of the cable news channels.

Even network television (ABC, CBS, NBC) exhibited an apparent bias for President Obama. While Romney received a roughly even amount of positive and negative coverage during the day, evening coverage (when the majority of viewers tune in to network news) saw a stark change, giving a positive three percent boost to President Obama while Romney received two-to-one negative coverage.

– now demanding that the press does to the other party’s guy what they never ONCE did when he was running???

Then you consider Obama’s unrelenting WAR on a fair and balanced press that had access and the ability to provide impartial coverage, and you just start BARFING.

“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.” So wrote President Barack Obama, back on Jan. 29, 2009, just days into his presidency. “Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” Now, six years into the Obama administration, his promise of “a new era of open Government” seems just another grand promise, cynically broken.

As the news industry observed its annual “Sunshine Week” in mid-March, The Associated Press reported that “[m]ore often than ever, the administration censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act [FOIA].” The AP report continued, “The government’s efforts to be more open about its activities last year were their worst since President Barack Obama took office.”

How about the Associated Press? What do THEY say about Obama? The AP published the damning results of its new analysis using federal data that finds the Obama administration not just to have failed to be “the most transparent administration in history,” but to in fact be less transparent than any recent administration. Data from the last two years also shows despite the repeated complaints from journalists and news outlets, the administration “has made few meaningful improvements” to its opaque M.O

So it is absolutely astounding that this despicable, vile roach-in-chief would come out and blast the media and blast Donald Trump benefitting in any way, any shape or any form from that media.

And yet that is precisely what the most pathologically dishonest and hypocritical human being in the entire history of the human race did:

WASHINGTON — President Obama delivered a forceful critique on Monday of politicians and the journalists who cover them, lamenting the circuslike atmosphere of the presidential campaign and declaring, “A job well done is about more than just handing someone a microphone.”

Speaking at a journalism prize ceremony in honor of Robin Toner, a longtime political reporter for The New York Times who died in 2008, Mr. Obama said the 2016 campaign had become “entirely untethered to reason and facts and analysis,” a coarse spectacle that he said was tarnishing the “American brand” around the world.

“I was going to call it a carnival atmosphere,” the president said, “but that implies fun.”

“The No. 1 question I’m getting as I travel around the world or talk to world leaders right now is, ‘What is happening in America about our politics?’ ” Mr. Obama continued. “They care about America, the most powerful nation on earth, functioning effectively and its government being able to make sound decisions.”

Mr. Obama’s references to Donald J. Trump, the New York real estate developer turned Republican front-runner, were unmistakable in his criticism of “divisive and often vulgar rhetoric,” frequently aimed at women and at ethnic and racial minorities. But he also turned his fire on the news media, saying it had given an uncritical platform to those pronouncements, in part because of relentless economic pressures that have changed the way news organizations operate.

The president suggested that the news media had not done enough to question the promises made by politicians — an apparent reference not only to Mr. Trump, but also to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the independent who is challenging Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama’s former secretary of state, for the Democratic nomination. Mr. Sanders has promised free public college education and national health care coverage, ambitious social programs that critics say could never be enacted.

“When people put their faith into someone who can’t possibly deliver his or her own promises,” Mr. Obama said, “that only breeds more cynicism.”

The president denounced what he called the practice of drawing “false equivalences” between competing claims made by politicians. “If I say the world is round and someone else says it’s flat, that’s worth reporting,” Mr. Obama said. “But you might also want to report on a bunch of scientific evidence that seems to support the notion that the world is round.”

In the latest report to undercut President Obama’s “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” promise, the Congressional Budget Office projects millions of workers will leave employer-sponsored health plans over the next decade because of ObamaCare.

Some will opt to go on Medicaid, but others will be kicked off their company plans by employers who decide not to offer coverage anymore, according to a new CBO report titled, “Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Coverage for People Under Age 65: 2016 to 2026.”

“As a result of the ACA, between 4 million and 9 million fewer people are projected to have employment-based coverage each year from 2017 through 2026 than would have had such coverage if the ACA had never been enacted,” the report, released Thursday, said

We were told that 48 million Americans lacked affordable health insurance and something had to be done, but even five years after the passage of Obamacare, 33 million Americans are still uninsured.

If you dig deeper into the actual numbers and realize what really happened with those 9 million “newly insured”, there’s little reason to cheer.

The number of Americans with health insurance increased by 9.25 million in 2014, the first year that two key provisions of Obamacare took place: the subsidies for coverage purchased through the exchanges and Medicaid expansion. And according to recent research by The Heritage Foundation, out of that 9.25 million, “the vast majority of the increase was the result of 8.99 million individuals being added to the Medicaid rolls.”

In other words, over 97 percent of last year’s newly insured Americans were from Medicaid expansion.

Medicaid is designed to assist people who lack the capacity to work, thus making them unable to access employer-provided insurance options, and those who are too poor to afford individual private health care plans. The Obamacare program, however, has expanded those parameters to include the young, the able bodied, and those who are capable of working but choose not to, exploding Medicaid’s ranks and taxing (pun intended) an already at-risk program running straight into bankruptcy. As Kristina Ribali of Uncover Obamacare points out, each dollar spent on those Medicare isn’t designed to serve is a dollar taken away from those who Medicare was designed to help: the truly poor and needy.

Of course, a Medicare expansion isn’t anywhere near ideal – in any way – but it’s interesting that the Obamacare program can, essentially, count as it’s only success a Medicare expansion, something that could have been accomplished without passing a multiple-thousand-page Federal law that has had such a disastrous impact on the way health insurance functions in America. According to the Heritage report, even the parts of the ACA that were supposed to help those in need have failed: while Obamacare counts 4.79 million new enrollments, the same program forced 4.53 million people off their employer-provided insurance, meaning a whopping net 260,000 people were actually served by Obamacare.

Put those two things together: remember how a Republican congressman was vilified by Obama who postured like a martyr and by the most dishonest media machine since Goebbels when he shouted, “You lie!” at Obama during a State of the Union speech?

I pointed out who was telling the truth and who was lying at the time:

There is a world where Joe Wilson is smiling and every single Democrat is screaming in the agony of eternal hell fire. Fortunately that world is coming. Because everybody who cares one flying DAMN about the truth knew where this vile ObamaCare law was going. And Democrats lied about it like the future citizens of hell that they truly are.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that even Politico – which was one of those propaganda mills for Obama when he was running in 2007-2008 – broke with this fascist lying weasel and said things like this:

“The last person in the world who should be lecturing journalists on how to do journalism is President Barack Obama. Yet there Obama was last night at a journalism award ceremony, yodeling banalities about the role of a press in a free society, moaning over the dangers posed by “he said/she said” reporting, and—to the delight of the assembled audience—attacking Donald Trump in every way but name. The press-heavy crowd, convened by Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications to give the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting to Alec MacGillis, clapped at Obama’s 30-minute address, encouraging his best Trump-baiting lines about “free media” and the dangers of “false equivalence.”What they should have done is bombard Obama with rotten fruit or ripped him with raspberries for his hypocrisy.How do we hate Obama’s treatment of the press? Let me count the ways. Under his administration, the U.S. government has set a new record for withholding Freedom of Information requests, according to a recent AP investigation. FOIA gives the public and press an irreplaceable view into the workings of the executive branch. Without timely release of government documents and data, vital questions can’t be answered and stories can’t be written.Obama’s “Insider Threat Program“ has turned employees across the government—from the Peace Corps to the Social Security Administration to the Department of Agriculture—into information squelching snitches. If this isn’t Trumpian behavior, I don’t know what is.“Obama hates the press,” New York Times national security reporter James Risen said not long ago, “and he hates leaks.” Associated Press Washington Bureau Chief Sally Buzbee has decried the “day-to-day intimidation of sources” by the Obama administration, judging it worse than the Bush administration on that score. And in a 2013 piece, Politico’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen documented Obama’s mastery of “limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.””

“The deeper you study Obama’s relationship with the press, the more you want to ask what business he has giving out a press award. Was Trump himself busy that night?”

“Shame on the Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications for allowing Obama—a documented opponent of the press—to pontificate on journalistic practice. The only press award he has any business awarding is special commendation to Trump, thanking him for making Obama look like a free-speech radical by comparison.”

The title of the above piece is “Spare Me Your Hypocritical Journalism Lecture, Mr. President.” It is very much worth reading.

The only difference is that I knew Obama was like that eight damn years ago.

Donald Trump owes his rise to one loathsome, despicable man – and that man is Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit. Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States. And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions. You mark my words. Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification??? Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage. You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching. And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.

Obama set out to break the Republican Party. And now this demon-possessed man claims that he’s in no way responsible for the party that he broke by imposing tyrannous executive orders that split a GOP desperately trying to react to outright fascism as Obama used the media in ways described above to distort and warp public opinion. If a group of thugs breaks into a gathering by a group of decent people and starts slapping people, kicking them, punching them in the face, some people will want to fight back and others will want to call the police and still others will want to cowardly negotiate with their attackers. That’s exactly what Obama did to the GOP with his sweeping tyrannous actions. And all the while he divided America by race, divided America by income, divided America by gender, divided-divided-divided so he could conquer no matter how small the margin was.

The result was tens of millions of people – basically half the nation – who are rabidly enraged at Obama and literally ready to do what Democrats have done – first with their vile Occupy Movement and then with race riots and now with Black Lives Matter and fascist Brownshirt violent attacks against Trump rallies – and begin burning and rioting.

And so we have that until now bottlenecked rage incarnated in the rise of Donald Trump. Right out of the toxic soul of Obama.

I can even show you with numerous headlines how Obama uses the same damn TACTICS that Trump uses to mock opponents and label them:

You click on that and you see 6,220,000 results of “Obama mocks Republicans.”

Is that presidential? It sure is now, in the age of Obama (and the type Obama created, Donald Trump).

When he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 1965, along with seven other black members, furious white members of the House refused to let him take his seat, accusing him of disloyalty. He was already well known because of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee’s stand against the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War.

I immediately smelled a rat. Do you know why? Because I have learned through a life of being forced to live through liberal-ideologue propaganda masquerading as “journalism” that if those “furious white members” had been Republican, they would have been exposed and named.

It was a matter of finding out just who these “furious white members of the House” who “refused to let [great black civil rights leader Bond] take his seat” were. I KNEW they were Democrats. Because I know the media is pathologically corrupt and dishonest. But it wasn’t easy. Because I had to keep sifting through all the press accounts that simply stated that “white members” refused to let Julian Bond take his seat. With the obvious implication being, “white” because they were RACIST and this was about RACISM.

I went through a good twenty articles and all I could find was that the members of the House who refused to let Julian Bond take his seat were “white.” NEVER a mention of the political party those racist “white members” belonged to.

But I found one tiny little nugget in the one I cite above. It pointed out that the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. And it told me the year: 1966.

So I entered “Bond” and “Supreme Court” and “v.” and “1966” to find who was fighting Bond to take his seat.

And, of course, yeah, this Democrat who is so esteemed other Democrats named a park after him is a DEMOCRAT.

It was DEMOCRATS who were the “furious white members” who were so pathologically racist they wouldn’t let a black civil rights hero take his seat. But of course that fact refutes the entire dishonest liberal narrative, so no “journalist” would ever bother to report it. Facts only matter if they confirm or can be twisted into appearing to confirm a liberal narrative. So in this case “white members” appears to confirm the liberal narrative of racism so they report “white members” but refuse to report which party the “white racists” belonged to because it would amount to the finger pointers pointing their fingers at THEMSELVES.

It wasn’t just James Floyd who tried to screw Julian Bond. There were plenty of other politicians in the process. For instance, another account of Julian Bond’s life [that I found AFTER finally discovering the name James Floyd] says:

Georgia Governor Carl Sanders declared Bond’s seat vacant. The voters elected him again. The House excluded him again. Bond appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

The Atlantic doesn’t mention which political party is to blame, of course.

Hmm. Wonder which party Carl Sanders belongs to? The mainstream media will never tell you if it’s a damn Democrat, so you can either just figure or you can go to the lengths they don’t want you to go to and be your OWN journalist and look it up. So I looked the name up and:

In the 1962 Democratic gubernatorial primary, Sanders defeated former Governor Marvin Griffin. Sanders received 494,978 votes (58.7 percent) to Griffin’s 332,746 (39 percent).[1] Thereafter, Griffin largely retired from politics. Sanders was the first Georgia governor from an urban area since the 1920s. He was the first modern Georgia governor nominated in the Democratic primary by the popular vote after the abolition of the County Unit System, a kind of electoral college formerly used to elect Georgia governors.

As you probably know, Hillary Clinton has announced that she is running for president. Why? Because she cares so deeply about “everyday Americans.”

Some synonyms of “everyday” according to any Thesaurus: commonplace, mundane, prosaic, dull, dime-a-dozen, lowly, unexceptional, unimaginative, unremarkable. But hey, when Democrats insult you, the media celebrates it. Just thank God Ted Cruz didn’t use the same term, because one of the synonyms is “vanilla.” And as we all know, that’s code for white, which means he’s a racist. I know, even if his parents were Cuban.

Oh, well, let’s move on. After all, as Hillary put it on a separate issue: “What difference can it possibly make” if she insulted the American people and suggested that we’re all dime-a-dozen in her vision of dull socialist Utopia?

The important thing is that Hillary loves us “lowly” people, you see.

Or DOES she?

Not so much, given how she actually treats her “everyday Americans” on what she has the elephant balls to call her “LISTENING TOUR“. I mean, who the hell was she “listening” to in her closed door meeting where those pesky “everyday Americans” barely got an opportunity to so much as glimpse their future imperial god-queen:

Here is how close I got to Hillary when she arrived:

She snuck in the backdoor and reporters were complaining that they were ‘here for hours’ and she wouldn’t even ‘let them see her.’

I noticed students pressed up against the glass in their classrooms so I took this photo. I learned later that they had been locked down for Hillary’s arrival.

Then everyone just waited like kids staring over a fence.

I wandered around and found this awesome guy who shared some of my sentiment.

I take that back.

The guy in orange pants was taking a break after all of the running when someone yelled “There she is!”

Look closely: There she is! People asked her what it’s like to be back in the game. She said, “Great!” Waved and got in car and left.

Then she drove right by me in her black van.

This is as close as this ‘everyday Iowan’ got to Hillary. Her van zoomed right by me, though I could not see her.

“Goodbye Hillary!”

And that was my experience as an Iowan trying to see Hillary.

This is all you need to see to know that the media is and will continue to be pathologically unfair and biased in their reporting of Hillary Clinton vis a vie any Republicans challenger(s):

Which corresponds to precisely what our “everyday” – i.e., “lowly,” “unexceptional,” “unimaginative” Iowan accurately reported when she tried to get a glimpse of her royal majesty.

The ONLY time the mainstream media would EVER swarm after ANY Republican presidential candidate is if that candidate was in the middle of a terrible scandal and the media were desperately trying to be the first to get in that Republican’s face with a microphone and wipe some mud in that hated enemy party’s candidate’s face.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t give one flying damn about anybody and she will stick a knife in the back of anybody who in any way, shape or form tries to interfere with her ambition to be the next imperial emperor after the emperor pharaoh god-king Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, the ONLY question I have for Hillary Clinton is that she say whether she is in favor of every single Republican or Republican appointee to enjoy the communications privilege which SHE enjoyed, whereby she ONLY shared communications that she and her staff deemed to be harmless, such that no Republican or Republican appointee ever again need to obey a freedom of information act request, or any subpoenasfrom Democrats, or be forced to share ANYTHING that could indict or impeach them????

Does Hillary Clinton authorize that behavior from all future Republicans, such that no Republican or Republican appointee ever need to release any communications they don’t want to release ever again? Or was Hillary Clinton anti-democratic and anti-American????

Hillary Clinton is a rabid fascist and to be a Democrat today is nothing short of being a fascist. But that’s okay, because so is the mainstream media that so utterly adores her.

It’s really an amazing thing, to watch the way the media covers the news.

As for the Jonathan Gruber revelations, do you know what the press is doing in “covering” it? They’re saying, “Don’t consider what Gruber actually said about the fascist dishonesty behind the passage of ObamaCare that ought to get it thrown out by any legitimate Supreme Court; fixate on the bright shiny object about Gruber pointing out that the American people are stupid instead.

If you believe for half a second that a story about a senior Bush Iraq war architect called the American people stupid and claimed that the Bush administration had deliberately lied to garner support for their war would have been ignored, you are an even bigger fool than I think you are.

That’s exactly what happened in this case. And to the extent that the media has bothered to cover it at all, they have played a bait-and-switch game by hyping the “stupid” remark rather than the “we lied to get this turd that no one would have supported if they’d known what it was” remark.

But how the media covers the news is as pervasive as it is fascist. They keep playing the same dishonest tricks over and over and over again, either not bothering to cover Obama scandals AT ALL or only covering a trivial aspect of it and then dropping it. And meanwhile the wheels of America’s destruction under Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” grinds on and on.

Back in September of 2013, Obama entered into negotiations with Iran over something that no president – including Obama himself, according to the fool’s own deceitful rhetoric – had ever been willing to negotiate: Iran becoming a full-fledged nuclear power.

Conservatives like John Bolton immediately predicted what would happen: Iran would take advantage of the “negotiations” to buy time, endlessly extending deadlines. For instance, on October 1, 2013, Bolton anticipated precisely what is now taking place as a deal-desperate Obama AGAIN extends yet ANOTHER deadline:

Mr. Obama is inverting Dean Acheson’s maxim that Washington should only negotiate from strength. Even if there were some prospect that Iran could be talked out of its nuclear-weapons program, which there is not, the White House approach is the wrong way to start discussions. Given the president’s palpable unwillingness to use the military to enforce his Syria red line—let alone to answer the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack—and his paucity of domestic political support, Iran’s ayatollahs know that the president’s “all options on the table” incantation regarding their nuclear program carries no weight.

Iran undoubtedly wants relief from international sanctions, which have exacerbated decades of incompetent economic policy. But there is no evidence that the sanctions have impaired Iran’s nuclear or ballistic-missile programs. Instead, Tehran has increased its financial and military assistance to Assad and Hezbollah in Syria.

Mr. Rouhani’s strategy is clear: Lower the rhetorical temperature about the nuclear issue; make temporary, cosmetic concessions, such as allowing inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency at already-declared nuclear sites; and gain Western acceptance of its “reactor-grade” uranium enrichment. Once that goal is attained, Iran’s path to nuclear weapons will be unobstructed and within Tehran’s discretion.

Iran will demand in return that international sanctions be eased, focusing first on obtaining small reductions to signal Western “good faith.” Mr. Obama and Europe already seem eager to comply. Western diplomats will assert defensively that these concessions are merely a matter of “sequencing,” and that they expect substantive Iranian concessions. They will wait a long time. Mr. Rouhani fully understands that once sanctions start rolling back, restoring them will be hard, perhaps impossible, absent a major provocation.

Mr. Rouhani will not supply one. Instead, he will continue making on-again, off-again gestures seducing the West into protracted negotiations. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs will proceed unimpeded in unknown, undisclosed locations. This was his 2003-05 playbook.

Extended negotiations will enable Mr. Obama to argue that a “diplomatic process” is under way to resolve the Iranian nuclear threat. No phrase is more beloved at the State Department. Mr. Obama will then use this process on Israel to prevent pre-emptive military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

In time, even Hamlet came to understand that “one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” Maybe one day President Obama will figure it out.

You read that entire article from more than a year ago and John Bolton predicted that Iran would paly Obama for the moral idiot fool that he is.

Everything Bolton said was right and continues to be even MORE right today.

Do you know WHY there has been such little angst? Because the jackass propagandists in the mainstream media haven’t EVER examined the predictions and the results of those predictions from conservative experts like John Bolton seriously. They have all along simply “reported” what the Obama administration said, then “reported” what the Obama administration said after the first time what the Obama administration said would happen didn’t happen, and on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, Iran keeps working on their nuclear bomb and they keep working on their ballistic missile technology without which a nuclear bomb is nearly useless. And the day that Iran is capable of delivering a nuclear missile to Israel or worse yet, the United States, the world will inexorably move toward what the Bible calls “Armageddon.”

So what happens when the talks with Iran that were idiotic to begin with went nowhere as anybody with any wisdom whatsoever knew would happen? Obama did the bidding of his masters in Tehran and extended the talks so that Iran could once again draw out negotiations without any agreement. So that Iran could keep working toward their goal of Armageddon while Obama rewarded them.

But here we are, extending the “negotiations” with Iran so they can keep working on their nuclear bomb and ballistic missile ambitions in peace and safety YET AGAIN.

Now, as morally insane as that “negotiation” with RABID EVIL is, understand that there is a group of people with whom Obama would burn down the world rather than negotiate: the majority of the American people whom he utterly despises.

After that election, Barack Obama acted exactly like Adolf Hitler would have acted after losing an election, after Joseph Stalin would have acted after losing an election, after Chairman Mao would have acted after losing an election. In short, he acted just like the socialist “Government is God” monster that he is.

What does the fascist propaganda press do? Ignore the 352 bills Democrats ignored, ignore the naked fascism of Harry Reid’s thug-style, and fixate on that ONE bill that Republicans didn’t move on in the House. Because in the most wicked and dishonest media since Goebbels, Democrats’ sins can be myriad

But the same fascist moral monster who won’t give the GOP one freaking nanosecond to formulate an immigration policy and pass a bill has now proven he will give rabid terrorist rogue regime Iran eternal extensions until they have successfully developed their nukes and their ballistic missiles to carry their nukes on.

“I can’t wait forever,” Obama says of illegally imposing his fascism on the backs of an American people who just overwhelmingly rejected him by issuing de facto amnesty for at least five million illegal immigrants. But of course he CAN wait forever for Iran to develop Armageddon for America and for Israel.

“I can’t wait forever.” So therefore I won’t wait AT ALL.

Barack Obama had TWO FULL YEARSof absolute control over all three branches of elected government and didn’t give a rat’s hairy rabies-filled ASS about immigration or immigrants. He could certainly wait THEN the same way he is now proving he can wait forever if need-be with nuclear-bomb-wanting Iran. But he can’t wait AT ALL for a Republican majority who would do the thing Obama is most terrified of: pass a law with the full support of the American people. So he sabotaged it in advance.

What Obama just did with immigration is like me negotiating over a sandwich with you – you know, after I’ve taken three giant bites out of the middle. When two parties negotiate, one side gives up something to get something else and the other side gives up something to get something else: Obama just obliterated that by taking what he wanted and telling the Republicans who now control two-thirds of elected government, “If you give up everything I’ll give you a meaningless promise to do part of what you want but then I’ll lie and ignore the law like I have always done before.”

If you’ve got an alternative theory, liberal Nazi, then just explain why Obama waited until AFTER an election (given the fact that he knew if he’d done this before the election the landslide against him would have even been MORE disastrous for his party) but refused to wait until after the new Congress that was just affirmed by the American people in a process called “democracy” was allowed to be seated. Explain why Obama did this after saying at least 22 times that doing what he did would be illegal, unconstitutional, anti-democratic, unfair to all the people who waited in line to legally immigrate and harmful to the American people as a flood of illegal immigration would occur as a result of the fascist act he took anyway.

There are now five million new “Americans” as millions more illegal immigrants on top of that number try to race in to our borders to exploit Obama’s lawless “law.” Which means there will be millions more in the USA to experience the hell of the Iranian nuke that Obama is also letting in detonate over our atmosphere.

It’s really quite staggering: the same Barack Obama is almost simultaneously Hitler on one issue with his fascist edict and Neville Chamberlain on another with his “peace in our time” extensions with soon-to-be nuclear Iran.

Do modern American “liberals” want limited government? No, they want the opposite; they are the OPPOSITE of liberals. Do they want to emphasize private property rights? Do they believe in laissez-faire free markets? Do they believe in individual liberty and natural law? Absolutely not. Do Democrats believe in “progress” in this classical sense? No. In fact they demonize it as evil:

This painting (circa 1872) by John Gast called American Progress, is an allegorical representation of the modernization of the new west. Here Columbia, a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she sweeps west; she holds a school book as well. The different stages of economic activity of the pioneers are highlighted and, especially, the changing forms of transportation.[1]

So-called “liberals” don’t want ANY of the things that actual, real liberalism embraces.

What modern American “liberals” actually are is “fascist.”

The only component of “fascism” that is NOT directly embraced by the modern American left is the doctrine of racism, which of course these leftists exploit to demonize their opponents. I submit that yes, in face, modern American “liberals” ARE racist and exploit race and race-baiting and racial politics at every turn to document their racism. And I submit that “fascism” and “racism” do not need to be connected in any way. As an example, while Nazi fascism was fundamentally racist, Italian fascism was NOT.

“It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.”

That’s right. If the Führer only had more power, he’d be a much better Führer. And think how wonderful the world would be.

The only problem is that’s actually been tried as socialists banded together in Germany under a man to whom they gave all of the power that he needed to pass the things that he needed to pass.

Now, some liberal is going to come here and say that it’s unfair to associate liberals with this big-time major liberal who just hosted a major fundraiser for Obama. Kind of like all the Democrats running for re-election saying its unfair to associate them with Obama after they spent the last six years voting with Obama an average of 95% of the damn time. But in fact Gwyneth Paltrow is not some idiot bimbo here, but an informed leftist describing the mindset of intellectual leftism here. Let me quote a great liberal of a former era – in fact the Godfather of American liberalism – H.G. Wells:

In a talk at Oxford provocatively titled “Liberal Fascism,” he called for liberalism to be “born again.” After his customary denunciation of parliamentary politics as an anachronism, he let out his frustrations, calling for fascist means to serve liberal ends by way of a liberal elite as “conceited” and as power-hungry as its rivals. “I suggest that you study the reinvigoration of Catholicism by Loyola,” Wells said. “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti.” It was also to Communism that “we shall have to turn—we outsiders, that is, the young people with foresight for enlightened Nazis; I am proposing that you consider the formation for a greater Communist Party; a western response to Russia.”

Wells thought he had found that Western response in 1934, when he met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and with key members of FDR’s Brains Trust. “My impression of both him and Mrs. Roosevelt,” he wrote, “is that they are unlimited people, entirely modern in the openness of their minds and the logic of their actions.” Here, for a time at least, was another political hero with whom he could identify wholeheartedly. FDR was “continually revolutionary in the new way without ever provoking a stark revolutionary crisis,” wrote the ever-certain Wells. “I do not say that the President has these revolutionary ideas in so elaborate and comprehensive a form as they have come to me, [but] unless I misjudge him, they will presently possess him altogether.” Indeed, FDR was “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order,” and in Brains Trusters Raymond Moley, Felix Frankfurter, and Rex Tugwell, Wells found the nucleus of the new elite, those who were destined to take full power in time.

Consider another of the great fathers of modern American liberalism, Woodrow Wilson:

“If any trait bubbles up in all one reads about Wilson,” rites the historian Walter McDougall, “it is this: he loved, craved, and in a sense glorified power.”

Wilson’s fascination with power is the leitmotif of his whole career. It informed his understanding of theology and politics, and their intersection. Power was God’s instrument on earth and therefore was always to be revered. In Congressional Government he admitted, “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.” Such love of power can be found in many systems and men outside the orbit of fascism, but few ideologies or aesthetics are more directly concerned with the glory of might, will, strength, and action. — Modern Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg, p. 84

Gwynet Paltrow simply stated what is necessarily true about what modern American “liberals” believe and HAVE believed.

Now with that awareness of ACTUAL American “liberal” history, consider Obama. Consider the massive, sweeping executive orders that the man has passed by dictatorial fiat.

This is a president who has been smacked down by UNANIMOUS Supreme Court rulings condemning his totalitarian power grabs THIRTEEN TIMES. That has NEVER happened in the entire history of our republic.

We live in an age of raw, distilled FASCISM that is coming out of the Democrat Party.

As we speak, Obama is waiting until after the election – because otherwise he would be held accountable for his raw, naked fascist power-grab – to give amnesty to as many as 34 million “future Democrat voters.”

Fascist.

I was nearing the end of my long walk two nights ago and was walking in the parking lot of a gym that I belonged to. I was four-tenths of a mile from my home in a public place. A police officer flashed me with his lights and demanded I show my ID.

As I gave the officer my information I gave him a piece of my mind, pointing out that I don’t have the right to walk near my house in a public area in the parking lot of an establishment that I am a member of without being required to produce identification. But I can vote for the God damned president of the God damned United States – and I used that then as now as a technical term to denote the damnation of this president and the country he represents by the God of the Bible – without being required to produce any identification whatsoever. And that this is a patently immoral and fascist system.

The officer said he completely agreed with me. “What can we do?” He asked me.

I didn’t have an answer. Democracy has been perverted by perverted, fascist people with a perverted, fascist end and a perverted, fascist means to achieve that perverted, fascist end. Because these are the last days and the beast is coming.

Obama was the first major candidate in history to refuse federal matching funds as he raised over a billion dollars. It was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party who fundamentally perverted and broke the campaign finance system.

You liberals say you want money out of politics. Because you are incredibly cynical hypocrites and liars and frauds.

And if these hypocrites and liars and frauds can’t buy their elections, they’ll do it with fraud. Because they will stop at nothing to impose their fascist agenda on America any more than Obama will let Congress or the Constitution stop him from imposing his fascist agenda on the American people with the most sweeping and far-reaching and illegal executive order power-grabs in history.

That is why they so rabidly and so militantly oppose ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER NO MATTER HOW REASONABLE IT IS to have any kind of voter identification whatsoever.

I keep hearing Democrats saying there’s no evidence of voter fraud. WHEN YOU CAN’T CHECK IDs, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU EVER PROVE ANY KIND OF VOTER FRAUD???

Remember refusing to say whether she voted for Obama? Remember how she punted to some higher principle of being allowed to cast your vote privately rather than admit something that would hurt her as she runs for an office in which all of her votes would necessarily be public when she herself proudly declared that she had voted for Hillary in the primary??? Democrats do the same thing when they punt to some higher principle of voting and that it is immoral to in any way suppress voter turnout. BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO SUPPRESS THE REPUBLICAN VOTE.

Get off your damned high-horse when you talk about voter suppression, you so-called “liberal.”

So allow me to simply state it as a bald FACT: if you want money out of politics, you vote straight-ticket REPUBLICAN. Or you’re a hypocrite and a liar like the fascist party you support is a bunch of hypocrites and liars.

Here’s another one. Do you want “transparency”???

Then don’t you DARE vote for a single damn Democrat.

First of all, let’s talk about the Obama administration’s “transparency.”

But let’s move beyond the fact that the Democrat Party machine is the party of opaque fascism.

Let’s move to expose “liberalism” itself as an ideology as being inherently non-transparent.

As a blogger who is openly partisan, I know what it’s like to encounter facts that are either unpleasant to me or hostile to my point-of-view. And the tendency is to simply ignore it and refuse to talk about it. And the more rabidly partisan you are, the more you will refuse to deal with facts that you don’t like.

When Bush was unpopular, the “news” covered Bush’s unpopularity with glee. Now that Obama’s every bit as unpopular, all we hear is the crickets chirping.

When Republicans were in danger, the media rushed in to cover the story massively in hopes of finishing Republicans off. Now that its Democrats in trouble, SILENCE. ABC ran 36 stories on the 2006 mid-term elections. How many have they ran now that Democrats are in danger? ZERO.

You find that a decidedly liberal partisan political agenda outstrips and outweighs any objective reporting of the news by a SIX-TO-ONE MARGIN – 159 stories then when Democrats were ascendant to 15 stories now when Republicans are ascendant.

The mainstream media is nothing short of a Democrat fascist propaganda machine that reports what the Democrat Party wants them to report the way the Democrat Party wants them to report it.

History overwhelmingly proves that if you want a media that will investigate and report on the activities of a presidency and a political party, you will vote to ensure that that president and those politicians are REPUBLICAN. Because otherwise the fascist so-called “liberal” media will NOT investigate and will NOT report the facts.

So if you’re in any way an honest person and you want openness and transparency, you will NEVERvote Democrat.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that Democrats DO NOT want openness or transparency. They most certainly do NOT want money out of politics. They do NOT want any of the things that actual “liberals” would want and in fact they want what only FASCISTS want. Which is why they vote the way they do for the people who do what the Democrat Party machine does.

It was only yesterday that I published the article, “America’s Enemy-in-Chief And The Pseudo-Journalist Enemies Of Truth Who Attack Any Of Their Own Who Would Expose Him.” I pointed out in that article how journalists had been personally destroyed for trying to report the truth. I mentioned some names, such as Sharyl Attkisson – award-winning investigative journalist who resigned in despair when CBS refused to air her stories after praising her for the same tough investigative reporting when the president happened to be a Republican. Having resigned, she was free to speak the truth: namely, the truth that a fascist propaganda-press WILL NOT report the truth about Obama that they eagerly drooled to report about Bush. And I mentioned a few courageous journalists – from the New York Times of all places – who dared to call a spade a spade and decry this fascist administration and its destruction on the 1st Amendment.

One of those New York Times journalists that I named yesterday was Jill Abramson.

Abramson pointed out that Barack Obama was – despite all of his arrogant lies to the contrary – the most secretive president she had ever encountered in a career of covering presidents that dated back to the Reagan years. She pointed out that Obama was in fact THE most destructive president of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in all of American history.

And now she’s gone, purged the way ALL who in any way defy the left get purged. Because the left is now pathologically fascist. And the urge to purge is the hallmark of fascism.

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

The White House does?

The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.

Allow me to simply state as a FACT that THIS is why Jill Abramson is gone.

Now read the article detailing her ouster and tell me where you see the real reason Abramson was purged:

The New York Times abruptly ousted its executive editor, Jill Abramson, Wednesday, citing “management” issues in the newsroom and sparking a firestorm of speculation across the media industry.

Managing editor Dean Baquet was appointed as her successor, making him the paper’s first African-American newsroom leader. Abramson and Baquet were among the top trending topics on Twitter on Wednesday afternoon, reflecting the intense interest the paper still generates among online readers.

The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.

The company declined to elaborate on why Abramson, 60, left the company where she had worked for 17 years so suddenly. She was so devoted to The Times that she has a tattoo of the letter “T,” signifying her ties the paper.

In an e-mail, Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of The New York Times Co., “made the decision because he believed that new leadership would improve some aspects of the management of the newsroom.”

“You will understand that there is nothing more that I want to say about this,” Sulzberger told the newsroom Wednesday afternoon, according to a Times report. “We had an issue with management in the newsroom. And that’s what’s at the heart of this issue.”

Widely respected for her journalistic skills, Abramson made history as the paper’s first female editor when she was promoted to the job in 2011. She has a reputation for a hard-charging, and at times, prickly personality.

Under her tenure, the paper had to deal with a series of high-profile defections by writers and editors — celebrated blogger Nate Silver to ESPN being the most cited example — who left for competitors and media start-ups.

But she is credited with guiding the organization at a time of deep changes, including the paper’s aggressive shift toward digital journalism and its decision to charge readers for digital content. Like other digital-first media organizations, its reporters are now tasked to write quickly online and update as stories develop, but they continue to produce high-quality enterprise stories and deeply reported features on multiple platforms, which allow the company to grow its circulation revenue.

“I’ve loved my run at The Times,” Abramson said in a statement. “We successfully blazed trails on the digital frontier, and we have come so far in inventing new forms of story-telling. Our masthead became half female for the first time, and so many great women hold important newsroom positions.”

Abramson was not immediately reachable for comment, and the company said she was “no longer here.”

Baquet, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who previously worked as editor of The Los Angeles Times, has been managing editor at the Times since September 2011 and was seen as an eventual successor to Abramson.

A native New Orleanian, Baquet is well-liked in the newsroom for his engaging personality and easy rapport with staffers. “I think he’s the perfect choice,” said Jim Amoss, editor of The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, who’s been friends with Baquet for decades. “As a manager, he’s a rare combination of inspiring, empathetic and even-keeled. He know instinctively how to respond journalistically to news. The newsroom will naturally gravitate toward him.”

When he addressed the staff Wednesday afternoon, Baquet received a minute-long round of applause from employees, the Times report said.

That was where the print version ended. The digital version I found online continued with this:

“He’d remember a conversation you had with him six months earlier,” said a newsroom employee who spoke anonymously because he wasn’t authorized speak publicly about internal matters. “He’s personable, charming.”

Citing “the confidence and support” Baquet receives from his colleagues, Sulzberger said in the company’s statement that “there is no journalist in our newsroom or elsewhere better qualified to take on the responsibilities of executive editor at this time than Dean Baquet.”

Baquet has had run-ins with Abramson, though it remains unclear if their relationship may have influenced Sulzberger’s decision.Citing people in the company briefed on the situation, The Times reported Wednesday that Abramson sought to hire Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of the Guardian’s U.S. operation and its global website, and name her co-managing editor alongside Baquet. The move angered Baquet and the tension was brought to the attention of Sulzberger.

Gibson confirmed to the Guardian that Abramson tried to hire her: “The New York Times talked to me about the role of joint managing editor, but I said no.”

Politico also reported that Abramson and Baquet once engaged in an argument that drove Baquet to slam his hand against a wall and storm out of the newsroom. “In recent months, Abramson has become a source of widespread frustration and anxiety within the Times newsroom,” said the story, written in April 2013 by Politico media reporter Dylan Byers. “More than a dozen current and former members of the editorial staff, all of whom spoke to Politico on the condition of anonymity, described her as stubborn and condescending, saying they found her difficult to work with.” The story was widely derided at the time as sexist.

The sudden masthead changes also may be driven by shifting priorities in the fast-changing newsroom, where digital strategizing can be overwhelmed by the daily demands of story production.

Last week, the company released an internal memo, following a 6-month review of its digital strategy, that called for more urgency in the implementation of its digital goals. Among them was a recommendation to create newsroom teams that tracked audience development and formed new strategies, as well a call to prioritize digital hiring.

“The report concludes that the masthead needs to make further structural changes in the newsroom to achieve a digital-first reality,” Abramson and Baquet wrote last week in a memo.

Sulzberger noted on Wednesday that Baquet was “closely involved” with the team that produced the memo.

Whatever precipitated her departure, Abramson doesn’t have “any journalistic apologies to make,” says Alex Jones, a former Times reporter who teaches media and public policy at Harvard University and is co-author of The Trust: The Private And Powerful Family Behind The New York Times.

“She was the head of the newsroom at a difficult time,” he said. “I worked for several top editors (at the Times). Every single one of them is pushy and demanding. I don’t think she is any more difficult than others. I think, overall, that just goes with the territory. It’s a demanding, high-standards place.”

Nowhere – NOWHERE – is her recent comment about the Obama regime mentioned. You know, the thing that ACTUALLY led to her ouster.

She delivered these remarks in a late-January interview. But that interview was given to al Jazeera, and of course nobody heard about it for a while. Until it was discovered and pointed out by Fox News late last week (which was how I heard about what Abramson said). That’s when the fascist wheels at the New York Slimes started grinding – and kept grinding until Abramson was out.

You can see the clues about how rushed this “ouster” – because let’s call it the “purge” that it clearly is – was:

The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.

The minute-long applause was for the purging of a woman who had dared speak the truth about Messiah Obama. You can only imagine how the doctrinaire liberals who make up the New York Times must have gnashed their teeth for two and a half months waiting for her to be forced out for her blasphemy of their god-king.

“Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.

But that was shortly after the New York Times ran a series spouting how working women could and should ask for more damn money. Which means that the New York Times would be saying, “Women should ask for more money, so long as they don’t dare ask for it from US.”

Times Co. shares extended earlier losses today, falling 4.5 percent at the close. The stock, which more than doubled during Abramson’s tenure, is still down 71 percent from a 2002 peak.

So maybe she deserved to be paid as much as the MALE who held her job and took the paper downhill was paid. But to be a liberal is to be an abject hypocrite who calls upon other people and other people’s money to do what they themselves refuse to do.

The two quintessential ingredients of modern progressive liberalism – abject hypocrisy and rabid fascism – here go hand in hand: “Don’t do what WE do; do what we TELL you to do.”

I leave it up to you. You can choose which meme you like: The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the liberal progressive world, fired Jill Abramson because they are blatant hypocrites who don’t give a flying damn about women’s equality. Or The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the progressive world, are blatant fascists who fired Jill Abramson because they can’t tolerate any dissent whatsoever.

Of course, if you’ve been following me so far, you know I take the latter position (to the extent that I don’t point out liberals are BOTH of the above). I submit that while Jill Abramson may have been an uppity woman whom the creators of liberals’ “war on women” hypocritically resented for wanting what liberals deceitfully claim they believe women ought to have; her real crime in their eyes was that she was an uppity woman who committed the unpardonable sin of speaking out against the fascism of the Obama regime.

What we’ve seen in both journalism and academia is a trend in which progressive liberals got their feet into the door, “progressively” and systematically began to hire more and ONLY liberals, and attained to a level of power in which they were able to dominate the agenda and shut down any and all opposition to their ideology. And then the purges. What worked well for Stalin works equally well for American progressive liberals.

The homosexual movement is a microcosm of the above. Homosexuals – citing the American tradition and the constitutional freedom of speech – demanded a voice. And Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents alike shrugged their shoulders and agreed that, yes, everybody deserves the right to speak freely and represent their cause or their view. But the moment they were allowed in the door, they began to slam it shut on everyone who disagree with THEM.

In other words, the “free speech” crap was merely that, rhetorical jiu-jitsu by fascists as a ploy to get as much as they could before seizing the rest.

It’s really no different from Hitler – who got to power largely by the homosexual movement in pre-WWII Germany. Hitler was quite willing to talk his way to power until he had garnered all the power he could by talking and it was time to seize complete power and then crush and exterminate his rivals (sadly for homosexuals, they ironically ended up on the wrong side of his subsequent purges).

A letter sent last year to Solis by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates allegations of administrative violations of fundraising rules by federal officials, said it began an inquiry after receiving a complaint that Solis had solicited a donation from a Labor Department employee. According to the letter, the complaint alleged that in March 2012, Solis “left a voicemail message on a subordinate employee’s government-issued Blackberry in which you asked the employee to contribute toward and assist with organizing others to attend a fundraiser for the President’s reelection campaign.”

Solis has declined to comment on the investigation, but a spokesman reiterated Friday that she believes she has done nothing wrong.

The January 2013 letter, which was reviewed by The Times, noted that Solis had resigned from her federal position earlier that month. As a result, the office said it was closing its inquiry into possible violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain political activities by federal workers and imposes administrative penalties. The letter said the administrative inquiry could be reopened if Solis takes an executive branch job in the federal government.

Despite assurances to the contrary, the IRS didn’t destroy all of the donor lists scooped up in its tea party targeting — and a check of those lists reveals that the tax agency audited 10 percent of those donors, much higher than the audit rate for average Americans, House Republicans revealed Wednesday.

Republicans argue that the Internal Revenue Servicet come clean about the full extent of its targeting, which swept up dozens of conservative groups.

“The committee uncovered new information indicating that after groups provided the information to the IRS, nearly one in 10 donors were subject to audit,” Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., Louisiana Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s oversight panel, told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at a hearing Wednesday.

The quintessential fascism that is the heart of the left is emerging in every area and every arena across the board. If you are a liberal, YOU ARE A FASCIST. I’ve been pointing out – literally for years now – that “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and that if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” there is absolutely NO QUESTION that it would be the progressive left. To wit: the Democrat Party today is the Nazi Party in everything BUT name. And if liberals were anything other than completely dishonest, they would call themselves what they truly are.

It is amazing to watch in these days shortly before the Antichrist prophesied by the Bible comes to a worshiping world the self-righteous left that praises itself for “tolerance” when they define “tolerance” as: thinking and acting as we say or else we’ll destroy you.

This is the New York Times. And we’re getting journalists who are calling Obama “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” and “the most secretive White House I’ve ever covered.”

Barack Obama is a genuine FASCIST. I’ve been saying it over and over and over again. And now I can even point to the New York Times for confirmation.

The Democrat Party in general and the Obama presidency in particular have become the party of rabid, cancerous fascism in America.

New York Times reporter James Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” on Friday, explaining that the White House seeks to control the flow of information and those who refuse to play along “will be punished.”

Poynter reports that Risen made the remarks while speaking at Sources and Secrets conference — a meeting of journalism , communication and government professionals held in New York City. The foreign policy reporter, who is currently fighting a fierce court battle with the federal government over his protection of a confidential source, warned that press freedom is under serious attack in today’s America.

In a speech kicking off the conference, Risen claimed that the Obama administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting” and “create a path for accepted reporting.” Those who stray from that path, he cautioned, “will be punished.”

The result is a “de facto Official Secrets Act,” Risen explained, making the current White House “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” And the media has been “too timid” in pushing back against the onslaught.

Some of that timidity was on display at the conference. Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker, denied that any constitutional protections for his profession even existed. “It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” he declared. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”

Robert Litt, the administration’s top lawyer for the national intelligence community, agreed with that statement. At the same conference, he likened reporting on national security leaks to drunk driving, arguing that we ban the practice despite the fact that there isn’t always a victim.

“Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure.”

Do you know what it will take to make liberal “journalists” like Jeffrey Toobin realize that “journalists” actually DO have constitutional freedom to report the truth even when an administration doesn’t like it? A Republican president. Nothing more.

Liberal journalists are not “journalists” at all – at least the overwhelming majority never are and the few who become “journalists” only do so to a small degree; rather, they are overwhelmingly ideological fascist defenders of their Führer’s official propaganda. And they will carry the government’s water unless and until a Republican is elected president – in which case they will rabidly turn on that president.

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

The White House does?

The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.

Abramson could also be talking about Fox News reporter James Rosen. Obama sicked his rabid law thug Eric Holder on Rosen and literally had Rosen FALSELY called a criminal co-conspirator so the Obama regime could monitor not only Rosen’s calls, but his PARENT’S phone calls.

Note what Abramson points out: every Democrat on earth is a vile, twisted liar and hypocrite. You people DESPISED Bush as an enemy of freedom, et al. AND NOW YOU ARE MINDLESSLY DEFENDING A MAN WHO MAKES GEORGE W. BUSH LOOK LIKE A SNOW WHITE PURE CHOIRBOY.

Barack Obama’s criminal thug abuse of journalism and of the 1st Amendment is frankly stunning. But like cockroaches whose mother eats them, liberals still flock to their messiah roach.

And because Democrats are liars without shame, without honor, without integrity, without decency and absolutely without virtue, they call people who take a principled stand against this tyrant “racists.” Because that’s the kind of fascists that they are.

What is truly interesting is how the left does when their is criticized: they get rabid fast and the fangs come out and it doesn’t matter if you are black or a woman or a black woman or WHAT. Of course it is EVIL for a conservative to attack a black person, or a woman. But you just watch what happens when a black person or a woman or a black woman in any way, shape or form opposes the doctrines of liberalism. You will see naked hate and you will FEEL that hate if you are their target.

And this is nothing compared to what the left did to female journalist Lara Logan. Her crime was daring to report on Obama’s lies in Benghazi. And in her reporting, she made one mistake that should have been caught by CBS (which has a former FBI guy who literally could have caught this with a phone call) and put a man on the record who turned out to have lied about having been in Benghazi. In the minds of liberals, of course, that one error not only obliterated all the GOOD reporting she’d done, but it somehow had a metaphysical power to obliterate ALL journalistic investigation into Benghazi.

The subtitle would have properly read: a warning to any who would dare to challenge the Obama narrative on Benghazi.

Note that hit job was written by a man. And ask yourself if a man had written such a piece so “exposing” a true ideological liberal “journalist” in such blatantly sexist and sexual terms, how would the mainstream media have responded if not in frenzied outrage akin to the Donald Sterling stuff?

Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson finally recently resigned in disgust and is blowing the whistle that Obama administration officials routinely gave her “misinformation” and “false information” and pressured CBS into not airing her stories. The former CBS News correspondent said her investigative pieces died “the death of a thousand cuts” and were much harder to get on the air under Obama than they had ever been under George W. Bush (when she was PRAISED for hard investigative reporting on an administration).

In her recently published memoir, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) relays a chilling anecdote about how Washington really works. In 2009, she was running a congressional panel to oversee the Treasury Department’s bailout of the financial industry, and the new Obama administration was unhappy that she was being as tough on them as she had been on its Republican predecessors. So the president’s top economic advisor, Lawrence H. Summers, took Warren out for a friendly dinner.

“Late in the evening, Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access…. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.”

Warren decided to remain an outsider and went right on flaying then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to help distressed homeowners while he was rescuing big banks. When President Obama decided against nominating Warren to run the new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, she ran for the Senate instead. And last year, from that seat, she was one of several senators who helped kill Summers’ likely nomination as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

There are those on the inside and there is everybody else. And under thug-tyrant Obama, you’d better shut your mouth the way a Mafia gangster does or you will find yourself on the outside.

When an Obama official like Jay Carney pats the administration on the back for being “the most open administration in history,” you know that they have to frankly be Nazis to even SAY such a ridiculous thing. You have to be a rabid liar to work for a rabid liar like Obama.

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

The essence of progressive liberalism is and always has been rabid personal hypocrisy and the assertion that “It’s not fascist when we do what we called you ‘fascist’ for doing when you did a fraction of what we’re doing now.”

I think of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army troops; they died at the rate of nineteen to every one American soldier killed in action. NVA troops would get tattoos that read, “Born in the North to die in the South.” But they kept coming. Because in their nihilist worldview their lives meant nothing and all that mattered was the survival of the State.

That was how the leftists viewed things in World War II (when 20 million Soviets died defending Stalin), it was how they viewed it in North Korea (where 2 million died defending Kim Il-Sung) and it was how the left viewed things in the Vietnam War (where 1.1 million gave their last full measure of communist devotion to the State defending Ho Chi Minh). And it is how leftist journalists view things now when they are willing – frankly eager – to throw themselves on every grenade that could harm their messiah Obama.

Obama is protected an army of cockroaches who will throw their “journalistic objectivity” and even their careers onto whatever grenade would blow up to expose their messiah. And America is doomed because of these traitors to truth and to their profession.

Some time back – going on three years ago now – I wrote an article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.” That was before the IRS was turned into a political weapon against conservatives, before Obama’s profoundly unconstitutional lawless abuse of power as he simply changed the law (when only CONGRESS has the power to change or make law) with ObamaCare and numerous other times such as gay marriage and illegal immigration.

The essence of liberalism IS fascism. It is LIBERALS who want to create economic and political fascism in America. Fascism is ALL ABOUT government control. As a conservative, for instance, I am pro-American founding fathers, pro-grammatical-historical Constitution, pro-laisssez faire free market, pro-individual liberty and pro-limited federal government. And for liberals to claim that it is conservatives who want to expand government control of society in a fascist way is as irrational as it is evil. Because just how in the HELL am I like Hitler when it is YOU DEMOCRATS who want what Hitler wanted (MORE government power; more power for the government to impose, less power for the people to resist government tyranny, fewer guns in the hands of the people versus the State)???

If you want to see a fascist, go look at a Democrat. If you are a Democrat and you want to see a fascist, go look in the damn mirror.

There have been so many instances in which Barack Hussein Obama has revealed himself as a naked fascist since I wrote this article it is beyond unreal. Let it be said that I was RIGHT as usual when it comes to Barack Obama. When he was running for president and I heard his “reverend” of 23 years say, “No, no, no, NOT God bless America! God DAMN America!” I knew that only a truly evil man would have sat in that church under such demon-possessed “preaching.” And I had what turned out to be a very accurate vision of the wicked man who has plunged America onto the path of dodo-bird-extinction.

The correct answer, ye Democrat fascists, is NEVER. And yet had Bush done one-fifty-thousandth the fascism Obama has done you people would have been riotously burning cars in the street in protest. Because you are the worst kind of hypocrites who ever lived. “Period. End of story,” to quote Obama’s words.

And it was a LIBERAL legal analyst who pointed out what a godawful CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Barack Hussein Obama has been as he described a nakedly fascist hijacking of the constitutional role of Congress by a dictator-in-chief:

The great concern I have for this body is that it is not only being circumvented, but it is also being denied the ability to enforce its inherent powers. Many of these questions are not close in my view; the President is outside the line. But it has to go in front of a court and that court has to grant review, and that’s where we have the most serious Constitutional crisis I view in my lifetime. And that is, this body is becoming less and less relevant.

“I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. . . . Within that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.”

You know,

This fascist hypocrite Nazi Stalinist thug Obama made all KINDS of false promises to America when he was lying his way into power. In 2008 he said:

I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

Now he’s our Nazi thug-in-chief. And the American people should be acting like the people of Ukraine while we still have the freedom to act. Because Barack Obama is a clear and present danger to America BY HIS OWN STANDARD.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will soon launch an initiative — the Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs (CIN) — “in order to assess whether government action is needed to ensure that the information needs of all Americans are being met, including women and minorities.”

When the FCC’s Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO) announced the initiative in a release last November 1, it stated it had selected Columbia, South Carolina, to field-test the Research Design for the CIN. OCBO expects to complete this next phase of its Critical Information Needs Research no later than July 2014.

Citing the FCC, Jason Pye (the editor-in-chief for the United Liberty website and former legislative director for the Libertarian Party of Georgia) wrote that the stated purpose of the CIN is to collect information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” as well as to assess “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

The FCC will also ask reporters: “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?”

The FCC attempts to justify the intrusive fact-finding mission by asserting that the results are necessary to complete a report that the FCC “is obligated under § 257 of the Communications Act of 1934 … to review and report to Congress on: (1) regulations prescribed to eliminate market entry barriers in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services, or in the provision of parts or services to providers of telecommunications services and information services by entrepreneurs and other small businesses; and (2) proposals to eliminate statutory barriers to market entry by those entities, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

However, Pye quotes the FCC’s Ajit Pai: “This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?”

The statement came from an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal for February 10 written by Ajit Pai, who is a commissioner of the FCC. In the article, Pai noted that news editors often disagree about which stories are important enough to be covered and which stories are not. But, stated Pai, “everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

Then Pai makes an amazing admission, especially since he was nominated to his post by President Obama: “Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree.”

As part of the process to uncover the information it wants, notes Pai, the FCC selected eight categories of “critical information,” including the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes the local news media should cover. The FCC will ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors, and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station will assist the FCC’s quest to (as we noted previously) “ensure that the information needs of all Americans are being met.”

As an indication of the egregious intrusiveness of the CIN study, the FCC’s follow-up questions will ask for “specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.”

But Pai’s assessment of the FCC’s new program becomes more ominous:

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary — in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC’s queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

A frank acknowledgment, coming from an Obama nominee! If a broadcast media outlet is dependent on not running afoul of FCC bureaucrats in order to keep its license and remain in business, what we have, in effect, is a fascist system not too different from what existed in Italy under Mussolini. Though fascism has multiple characteristics, a hallmark of the system is that instead of openly nationalizing private property, as did the communists, fascists allowed private property to exist in name — while controlling it via regulation. Under fascism, entrepreneurs have only the illusion of private property, since the government dictates how their property is to be used.

In his book, Propaganda: The Art of Persuasion: World War II, Anthony Rhodes noted that Italian fascist authorities seized control of some newspapers on the grounds that they published false information likely to incite class hatred or express contempt for the government. In contrast, pro-fascist periodicals were subsidized. By 1926, government permission was needed for a publication to operate. From 1937 to 1944, the Italian Ministry of Culture exercised control of all channels of communication in Italy, both print and broadcast.

Fascist dictator Mussolini personally chose all newspaper editors in Italy, and those who did not possess a certificate of approval from the fascist party could not practice journalism. Though Mussolini created the illusion of a “free press,” no such freedom existed.

Even more repressive control of the media existed in fascist Italy’s sister state, Nazi Germany, where censorship was implemented by Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. Under Goebbels, newspapers, radio, and all forms of media were put under the control of the Nazis. Radios capable of receiving uncensored broadcasts from outside Germany were confiscated.

The U.S. government’s interest in regulating the broadcast media began with commercial radio broadcasting itself. The Radio Act of 1912, which mandated that all radio transmissions be licensed, was superseded by The Radio Act of 1927, which transferred most of the responsibility for regulating radio to the newly created Federal Radio Commission (FRC). The five-person FRC was given the power to grant and deny licenses, and to assign frequencies and power levels for each licensee. The Commission was not given any official power of censorship, but programming could not include “obscene, indecent, or profane language.”

The first commercially licensed radio station in the United States, KDKA in Pittsburgh, began broadcasting in 1920. The March 1, 1922 issue of the Commerce Department’s Radio Service Bulletin listed 67 stations, but by the end of that year that number would increase to more than 500. (Today there are around 15,000 commercial radio stations in the United States.)

The FRC was replaced by the FCC when the Communications Act of 1934 was passed. The proliferation of radio stations was used as a rationale for federal policing of the airwaves to prevent radio signals from overlapping and interfering with each other. But what is the rationale for federal regulation of broadcast content?

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Does not freedom of speech and the press apply to radio and TV broadcasting as well?